The Cult of Personality, GCA style

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Why do we care who designed any golf course?  Or rather, why do we try to attribute "design" to one person or two people, when it is obvious in virtually all cases that many individuals have been or are being involved?  Is it just chance that most of the courses we would consider to be truly great are collaborative efforts, many of them over significant periods of time?  Do we have some sort of primeval urge to personify our happiness, or even assume that anything great could never have been created by a committee?  Wouldn't it be more honest and educational to be able to say: "Look at that Papazian run up there next to that Coore poof and framed by those two MacKenzie bunkers?"  Do we have an unnatural predisposition to ask rhetorical quesitons on this site?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

This site is devoted to great golf architecture. In most cases great golf architecture is the product of architects. If you don't care about architecture, you're likely not to care about architects.

We do say "look at the work Stutt and Sutherland did at Dornoch, without their contrubution this golf course would not be revered architecturally."

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom

With all due respect, I think you miss my point completely.  I'm assuming that everybody on this site, even including you and me, is interested in "great architecture."  I'm just asking why many of us seem to be prone to the fallacy (my judgement of assuming that "architecture" has to be atrributed to AN architect, rather than to an historical process involving many people, geology, meteorology, etc. (my judgement, again. )

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I don't think you give the participants on this site enough credit. I believe most on this site understand that every courses' process is different and don't believe that a golf course's architecture has to be attributed to a single architect.

Most everyone is familar with the colaborative effort at PV, that Pebble Beach evolved with the help of a number of people, that Cypress Point was Hunter and MacKenzie and so on. They also understand the design of Camargo can be attributed to Raynor, NGLA to Macdonald, Pinehurst #2 to Ross, Swinley Forest to Colt, Winged Foot to Tillinghast, Lawsonia to Langford etc. Could they have done it without the help of anonymous craftsmen - no. But that is true with many complicated artistic endeavors. You know what they say--the QB gets far too much of the credit and far too much of the blame.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom

You miss the point again.  It is not about the knoweldge of the people on this site, which I respect greatly, BTW, but about how the personification into one icon of the efforts of many to create a great course, over great periods of time (this is where GCA is very diffent from all other forms of architecture, IMO) can be dangerous.  It leads us to equate a living breathing entity like a golf course that people play over and use and abuse with a piece of canvas with paint on it, or even words written on some 17th century piece of paper.  Such equations limit our ability to not only enjoy what has been created but also our human potential to improve what has been created, as and if appropriate.

[redanman]

I'll bite, since I've never made a comment ANYTHING like this:

There certainly is a cult of preferred personality here.  The general public has a cult of personality also.  It started in the 1960 with "It's a Robert Trent Jones" to nowaday's "It's a Fazio!"

There's my easy method of wine appreciation that's easily adaptable to golf course architecture@gca.com:

-I'll drink it
-I won't drink it
-I'll drink it if someone else is buying.

-I like it
-I don't like it
-I love it because (C&C, Mackenzie, Doak, Raynor..) built it.
This system doesn't allow for factors other than the architect

It's called a free pass. (Just an over-simplification for humour.  I think the discretion here is actually pretty darned good.)  I think most here appreciate the importance of a great site.

Then there's Huckaby
"I'll play there"!!!!!!! (Love it Huck-great attitude)

[D. Kilfara]

Rich, I'm very curious to find out what a "Coore poof" is...

I agree with your point, to a point. It's convenient to refer to use architects' names as adjectives - a "Mackenzie bunker", for example. And there is obviously some sort of urge to give credit where credit is due (and vice versa) to specific individuals. Would we enjoy a Hemingway novel less if we didn't know it was written by Hemingway? Who knows - we might even enjoy it more - but you don't sell books without the author's name on them. But yes, I see what you're getting at. The name-game can get quite pedantic, especially at a course like Augusta National (as Mr. Mucci has articulated in a recent thread) which has undergone revision upon revision.

As for your question, "Do we have an unnatural predisposition to ask rhetorical quesitons on this site?", do you even need that question to be answered, or is it just rhetorical?

Cheers,
Darren

[paul p]

I read somewhere a long time ago that a lot of the credit for McKenzie's green shaping should go to one of his assistants who stayed onsite for most of their projects. I have searched for information on this, without much luck. I don't know if it's even true.

Does anyone have any information on this?

[Paul Turner]

I think the architects are entitled to their due or "icon" status.  Too much of a coincidence that all these great courses simply sprung up around the globe with the same names attached.

OK courses like Rye and Lytham have benefited from "improvements".  But they've also remained relatively static for decades: they've stood the test of time and I believe they should be preserved.  If this involves sticking to an icon's ideas than so be it.

If you are continually "improving" courses, what do you have left for later generations?  People in generations to come will want to play the same holes as Seve and Nicklaus.

[THuckaby2]

Then there's Huckaby
"I'll play there"!!!!!!! (Love it Huck-great attitude)

You are one perceptive dude, redanman.  And here I thought I was mysterious.  But yep, that about sums up my attitude...  

TH

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Darren

As THE Doyen will probably soon upbraid me for, "poofs" are more attributable to Maxwell than Coore.  The latter is just a latter day camp follower, if that is possible.......

As to what they are.........

.........well, to me they are like that little bump on the back left of the 1st green at Dornoch that allows a "Sunday" pin position which means that a putt from 15 feet below the hole is far more makeable than one 3 feet above the hole.  All this on a seemingly flat green.

.......or, think of our playing partner at Brora, Jeff McDowell, who leapt like hare being chased by a ferret off the 16th green to examine a serving tray sized lump of dirt to the back of the 17th tee.  "Where did that come from?" he wondered, being so gobsmacked as to not even try to preface it with "Uff-da!!!!!"  Hey, Jeff, it was just a poof.  Pity that Braid didn't spend more than a day or two at Brora..........

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Paul

Good points.

To be argumentative (moi!), why do you care that future generations (who might be cloned or genetically modified to be able to hit the power fade or even equippped with GPS in their cerebella to really "dial in" their next shots) get to play the same holes/shots as Jack or Seve.  Maybe I'm being selfish, but I can't play the 1st at Prestwick that Old Tom played, or the old 6th at Dornoch that Roger Wethered played, or any of the holes that were played in the first US Open at Shinnecock, or the old 15 hole course on the lnks at Burntisland that is now a parrk.  Maybe I'm being too futuristic, but I don't really care that I can't!  Sure, if all things were equal, I'd love for these old tracks to still exist, but they don't, and all things are not equal, not at all.......

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I wouldn't think of upbraiding you for your mention of "poofs". Why would I do that? But if you really want to know where that word came from I'll tell you--if I haven't already. I'm almost certain you're just dying to know!

About five years ago when Bill Coore was helping me with the Ardrossan project here, I took him over to GMGC to see the place. He'd never been there and all he knew was it was a Ross course. We had about 1/2 hour to see the course so we got in a cart and were tearing around the course and as we flew by #8 green Coore said that looks like a Maxwell green! Well, that sort of blew my mind because clearly he had no idea that Maxwell had ever been to GMGC as far as I know and certainly if he did it's written nowhere what Maxell did.

And as we flew by #10 green he said, "Whoa, here's another one, gotta get out and inspect it". He was talking about Maxwell's greens (I'd only heard of the Maxwell Rolls) and their characteristics and he went over to a broad bump and said "see this, it's almost like they got some air underneath the green surface and pumped it gently and the green in this spot went like, ah, er, you know like "POOF"!

And that's why I've always called those little contours like that "poofs".

But they aren't exclusive to Maxwell, that's for sure, as often and as well as he may have done them.

#10 green Charles River has two of the best "poofs" I've ever seen in it and when I was there I asked Dave Miller and Ed Baker if Maxwell had ever worked on that green. They said no it was pure original Ross. And the course was built in 1921.

And I checked Maxwell's bio and it says after his wife died in 1919 Perry went into golf design but before he did he spent a few years traveling looking at some of the best courses in the south and east!

Again, Charles River was done in 1921! Did Maxwell stop in to take a look at it and see that #10 green and say; "Whoa, I gotta stop and inspect that, that looks like somebody got some air under there and went poof?"

Wouldn't surprise me if he didn't get the idea from Ross. And where did Ross get it? Well next time you're on the back of #1 green at Dornoch look very closely at that bump back there because it may be the granddaddy of all "poofs".

So now you know the etymology and the complete family history of the POOFS! Most definitely the tree of the Poof family leads us to believe they originally were of Scottish blood!

If you want to you can even call the poof on the rear of #1 Dornoch, Old Tom Poof! I call the one at GMGC's #10  Perry Poof and Ed and Dave can legitimately call theirs Donald Poof!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rich,
The Sistine Chapel has been written over. Michelangelo was not there for that act nor was his team of apprentices. Have the artists involved with the restoration been credited? Hopefully the restorers are added to the written record.

By studying the old photos, drawings and writings we learn what the Macdonalds and MacKenzies actually built.
Students of architecture, once armed with this knowledge, can better understand whose work they are looking at, be it one of the "Masters" or the handiwork of "overwriters".
The identification of the original architect becomes the starting point from which all else can be deciphered. It then becomes known to what extent changes have occured and a better understanding of the evolutionary process as it pertains to original features. Once defined the information becomes part of the written history, if not always the oral.

I don't see anything resembling a cult, it's still "Michelangelo's Chapel".

[Paul_Turner]

Rich

I don't particularly care that I can't play the same holes as Old Tom either, but I do care that I can play the same holes as Seve.  And I think older generations will too; it distinguishes the game from others, I'm never gonna play footie at Wembley or Celtic Park.

And golf has changed, eventhough the Scots have played it for hundreds of years, golf only really got going as a popular sport at the turn of the century. So I think generations to come, will have more affinity with Nicklaus than we do for Old Tom.

Again, I think that since these famous courses have remained universally popular for many decades without much change, we should do our best to keep them.  I certainly don't see that this does any harm, surely you want to preserve a hole like the 15th at Prestwick or the 6th at Painswick, golf is all the more interesting for having them.

[Joel_Stewart]

Do we have an unnatural predisposition to ask rhetorical quesitons on this site?

I for one have always asked questions expecting to get an answer and always been amazed at the knowledge that people have.  

My feeling is that this site takes golf architecture to the 10th degree allowing a far greater understanding of nuances offered in many courses.  I still remeber one architect commenting on the SI/GCA article about Tommy saying he didn't know what to make of Tommy and his detailed study of bunkers?  Who else is going to study and archive this material if we don't?

[Dan Kelly]

So now you know the etymology and the complete family history of the POOFS! Most definitely the tree of the Poof family leads us to believe they originally were of Scottish blood!

Then let us give them their proper name: the MacPoofs!

(Of course, here in America we can still call them, in our efficient American way, the Poofs. Oh, and by the way: Did you know that the Poofs are all very bad golfers -- so bad that they often miss the ball entirely -- and that every one of them goes to Yale? Of course you knew that. Everyone's heard of the Whiffin' Poofs!)

[Bob_Huntley]

Whatever you do, do not call an Aussie a 'Poof, Pouf or indeed Poufter'' as you will probably end up recieving a belt around the ear. It's their word for homosexual.

For those of you nutty enough to have watched Monty Python, they did a sketch of a bunch of Aussie professors in the outback selecting some new faculty members. Their one criteria for selection" No poufters."

[Paul_Turner]

Bob

It ain't just the Aussie's!

[Tom Doak]

Rich,

I agree with you about this, and then I don't.

I do find it strange that because Mike Keiser gave me a great job, I'm a genius now for the same style of work that few cared about before.  I find it strange that people want my autograph, but then I haven't understood the autograph thing since I turned ten.

Then again, the cult of personality in golf course architecture is much less than in many other aspects of American culture ... where people become breathless over any type of "celebrity" no matter how unimportant they may be.

By the standards of my profession, I think I've always been quite generous in sharing credit for "my" courses with the people who helped create them ... and I do value their contributions.  However, it bothers me when people take this so far as to imply that the architect of record is overrated, or that some of those people are MORE responsible for the quality of a course than the architect was.

Because, to put it simply, none of those other co-creators would have been on site if the architect hadn't paid them to come.  (Or taken the time to find talented associates and teach them as well.)

My only problem with deconstucting MacKenzie in his biography is that some people now think that Mick Morcom or Perry Maxwell or Robert Hunter were really the brains behind his great designs ... even though only Maxwell ever did anything of note once MacKenzie was gone.

[TEPaul]

Oh Jeesus, POOF is a word for homosexual in Australia??

Well, Hell, the word won't do then. Wait about six months and I'll try to get Coore back to GMGC's #10 green and ask him again how to describe that particular little contour!

Maybe next time he'll come up with a more globally acceptable word for it! I don't think either one of us wants to get punched out by an Australian.

Can you imagine that--Perry Maxwell built gay greens!?

[TEPaul]

TomD:

I must say I've never heard anyone say they felt that Hunter or Maxwell were the brains behind some of MacKenzie's designs. I've heard people talk about some of the things that either Hunter or Maxwell and some others may have done when working with him but I sure never heard anyone say any of them were the brains behind his designs.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom D

Thanks for the thoughts.  I fully agree with you that the architect deserves primary credit for any golf course, in the first years that it is built.  However, if a course changes over time, through many factors outside of the original architect's control, shouldn't the value of those responsbile for those changes be recognised?  Consulting architects, superintendents, green's chairmen, etc.?  I don't mind people personifying Pacific Dunes at this time as your work (even though I do recognise that you recognise the value of others, and state it quite elegantly above), but I wonder what PD will look like 50 years from now and how much that look will be "pure" "Doak" and how much will be the work of other people?  If it is still a great course, as I hope it shall be, wouldn't it be more useful for those people on GCA v. 2052 to be trying to understand why to be able to "deconstruct" what was actually done to/with the course by you (and Keiser, Urbina, etc.) adn those that followed you.  This gets to that old thread on palimpsests (love that word since it's impossible to pronounced without sounding funny!)?  Just wondering.

PS--congrats re: the celebrity status and the autographs.  When people start paying you for them, a la the old basebal players, you'll know you have really arrived (or possibly, have just gone!).

Before I get to Tom P, let me pass on a great story about autographs.

Harry Lauder was a very famous Scottish music hall comedian who did a great business touring the Caledonia Diaspora, particularly in Canada.  While in Canada he insisted in paying all of his expenses, even the most modest ones, by check.  Somebody asked him in life why he went to the trouble of doing that.  His answer was simple.  He found out early on in these tours that a significant number of the few checks that he wrote were never being cashed because the payees were such big fans of his.  It turned into a nice little money earner for him........

Tom P

What were we tlaking about......

Oh yeah, about "poofs".  Same meaning over in the UK, although it's getting less pejorative.  One of the late night talk show hosts calls his backup singing group/band "Four Poofs and a Piano."

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I have a feeling what Tom Doak, C&C and some others have said about some of the siginificant architecture of this world is it would be good to see it preserved and in some cases restored. And I don't think anyone would deny that golf courses do change evolutionarily over time. But if a significant course and it's architecture is perserved or restored there isn't much reason to give credit to green chairmen and superintendents for it's architecture. Give them credit for having the sense to preserve the architecture but that would be the original architect's.

Take a case like Shinnecock. The course has been very little altered in the last 72 years generally speaking. Trees have grown up and been cut back, sand areas have grown in with rough and may be reestablished, greens have shrunken and probably will be expanded back. Tee length has been added where Flynn planned for it through original "planned elasticity" etc.

Should anyone be given architectural credit for those things since William Flynn built the course? Not in my book they shouldn't. Give them all credit for having the sense to preserve the architecture of the golf course. But that's all.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom

You had me agreeing with you all the way until your last paragraph.

I think that the impact of the decisions made by the people who came after Flynn on the total Shinnecock experience were very much more than just "preserving the architecture."   To think otherwise assumes that the architect has almost supernatural knowledge of how a course is going to evolve and be used over the centuries, and that the custodians of his work have an almost supernatural understanding of his intent.  Have they all worn "What Would Flynn Do?" bracelets around their wrists for the past 72 years?  Should they have?  If so, this is what is mean by a "Cult of Personality."

All the best

Rich